28 November 2012 4:22 PM

Thumbing My Nose

One or two contributors seem to think they are entitled to demand that I assent to some sort of oath of purity, to satisfy them that I am not a 'racist', whether on or off my bicycle.

Well, my response is similar to that of the American general in charge of defending Bastogne, Anthony Clement McAuliffe, during the 'Battle of the Bulge', when called upon by the Germans to surrender, which was 'Nuts'.

Not merely do I have no need to prove my innocence of this charge. I have a positive need to thumb my nose at people who think they are(yet) in a society in which people are under any obligation to make public assents to the ruling ideology. We are not. And those who think that they can behave in this way are helping to bring closer the day when we shall have real Thought Police among us, examining our words and probably our facial expressions (FaceCrime!) for keys to our inmost thoughts, and making windows into our souls.

They ought to be ashamed of themselves. One of the worst things about them is that they're not ashamed of themselves, but zealous and confident. Not merely do I not care if they wish to believe bad things about me. I am actively anxious to court their disapproval. They are the harbingers of totalitarianism, and while I cannot keep them away from this place as long as they abide by the rules, I can treat them with the open contempt which we shoudl all show for enemies of liberty.

***A small footnote. One of my critics on 'Twitter' says that, by reading comments about me on that site, I act like a person who goes around searching lavatory walls for scribbled, insulting comments made about him.

This person therefore states that he believes that making such comments is the equivalent of scrawling rude messages on lavatory walls. I don't actually agree. It's reasonable and normal for people to seek to know what others are saying about them on a site that is frequently quoted on mainstream media and which plainly influences the current of opinion. As Lord McAlpine has shown, there are other reasons for doing so, too. But this person himself comments on Twitter, and yet believes that it is like a lavatory wall. What does that make him? I asked him. He didn't answer.

It is interesting that when I have tried to make rational and polite (and, as I believed, private) responses to those who have posted hostile comments about me on Twitter, the retorts have almost invariably been infantile and/or unresponsive, and sometimes combined with public jeering at me for getting in touch at all.

I obviously haven't bothered with the people who write 'Peter Hitchens is a ****ing ****', or who say, imagining this is original and clever, that I should have died instead of my late brother - a version of this appears about once every ten days, or more often if I have recently been broadcasting.

But it seemed worth trying some of the others.

So far, not much use. There's an element of surprise that I am prepared to communicate with them at all, and also of mistrust, perhaps born out of their own half-hidden or wholly hidden identities.

Even so, I thought that, where there was some sign of a reasoning mind, I might see if I could discover what motivated their attacks, and perhaps take them on in debate (as I do here, and indeed in general). Should I bother? I am unsure. I think there is something about Twitter which encourages a sort of hit and run verbal mugging or happy slapping technique. And of course it is easy for anyone who is challenged to run away and hide, or to attack me , to their electronic friends, for responding at all. Can it be effectively challenged, or is its nature such that reason and politeness must lose?

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

@mikebarnes | 04 December 2012 at 07:26 PM

As far as I am concerned you are at liberty to like or dislike anything in this universe for any reason you choose. I am not a thought policeman. If you don't want to be surrounded by other races for whatever reason then that want is entirely your business. But racism (or racialism) in nonetheless irrational. To take the view that phenotypes correlate with hierarchies of superiority and inferiority is not only irrational but palpably untrue. In fact it is stupid. So I'll go further with my syllogism. As follows....

Racism is stupid. Stupidity is evidence of a paucity of intelligence. Racism is evidence of a paucity of intelligence.

I observe that you reject this argument in its entirety. You said...

"I reject your argument totally as it is formed from an idea that you alone are superior in education."

My argument is formed from the idea that it is quite true. To challenge the truth of it you will have to furnish evidence which invalidates my premise.

"For were the Vietamese racist and uneducated when they fought to eject the American army. And the french before them ."

No. The Vietnamese ejected the French because the French were a colonial power. They ejected the Americans because the Americans were a quasi-colonial power.

For your reference in respect of your "As do you in you(r) ideas of what racism, racialism, means": Concise OED definition of racialism...

@ Paul P
Ok then .Ill play your tune , syllogism. Why can you possibly construe . That a perfectly common defence mechanism of not wanting to be surrounded by other races . Make anyone superior. As do you in you ideas of what racism, racialism, means. So racists might nor be what you think they are . Thus cannot be buried in one hole. Many other reasons.
So just a I said a sweeping statement based on prejudgement or simplified into prejudice, on your part.
For were the Vietamese racist and uneducated when they fought to eject the American army. And the french before them .
I reject your argument totally as it is formed from an idea that you alone are superior in education .Thus any who protest you or your notions on whatewver must therefore be lesser mortals , There supremasism for you.

Okay, then, one step at a time. In one of my replies I constructed a syllogism. As follows...

Racism is an irrationality. Irrationality is evidence of a paucity of education. Racism is evidence of a paucity of education.

Devise your own syllogism which refutes mine and supports your view that racism reflects neither a good education nor a bad one.

I should, as Peter Hitchens often points out, use the word 'racialism' as opposed to 'racism'. They have slightly different meanings. Common usage, though, has made the terms interchangeable. The meaning I wish to convey by using either term is 'superiority' by reason of race.

@ Paul P
It seems if truth be known .You are in thrall to the idiot box. For in any Telivised report on protests it seems to me all banner wavers come across, as the same, although opposing each other .
You oin the otherhand claim to be able to deduce education, from these banner wavers in telivised events . But then claim never having seen muslims banner waving fanatics declaring hurt on our own . All very selective .
Oh just a point .
Please tell me the last time you saw racists with banners. I presume the only clue would be a banner saying, blacks go home or similar. But I suspect its banners claiming support for the BNP which you mix up with others long redundant, or make gigantic leaps of flawed logic , Rather than Brits protesting Islamic hate filled protests Which is a relgious thing not racial . As many here like to point out.
Still as you point out .That type of protest you haven't ' seen .Have no idea of .so cannot comment on
It is I insist still ,a sweeping statement ,made from some inate capability you claim to have . But really do not. Totally blinded by your own claim of worth, linked to an abilty to observe the rules of syntax, and education. Its a pity really, as on drug non policy you talk sense.

In my own experience in conversation with very few of either caste, and in observing performances in the media, my opinion is that banner-waving racists are semi-literate and ill-educated.

Can I draw your attention once more to to my saying "in my experience", "very few of either caste" and "in my observing". You will note that I didn't say, respectively, "in everyone's experience", "a great many in both castes" and "in everyone's observations".

To support my point of view I shall repeat the syllogism I constructed for the benefit of Mr Barnes. As follows....

Racism is an irrationality. Irrationality is evidence of a paucity of education. Racism is evidence of a paucity of education.

If this is still too vague for you then, I'm sorry, I'm done with this theme on this thread.

Paul P
You appear very vague about your reasons as to why banner waving racists are less educated than anti racists ( are we talking about banner waving anti racists here?)
Perhaps you could furnish us with some figures ie have you spoken to say one hundred of each group? or two hundred? Or perhaps one, or perhaps none?

Quite so. So far as I can tell the normal form of address by the police to the general public is "Oi, you!"

There then follows a flow of barked impertinence in that militarised staccato the police now use to the tax-paying public. The required form of response is to sit in your car wearing a veil of presumed guilt as if you were a schoolboy caught smoking in the bike shed, and keeping to yourself the thought that if anyone outside that uniform had spoken to you like that you'd have punched their lights out.

@ Jerry Owen
One must presume .many banner waving racists ,have been approach by Mr P thus enabling him. to deduce, a lack of education.
By the same rule. he has approached many non racist banner waving folk ,to thus assertain their overwhelming appreciation of ,and deep understanding of education. in the need to have a balanced view, of the world we all inhabit .
So we must accept what a dilligent type he is for being so selfless in his drive to find the facts .and so altruistic to share them on this blog. He had no need to whatsoever.
Perhaps next, he will approach, banner waving Islamics .Protesting our remberence sevices, or wishing death on our soldiers, and try and delve into their educational qualities. for or agin
I for one would be most interested in his answers.
But I fear he will not .
Just rely on those with the most piercings ,and tattoo's to bolster his anti racist credentials. Having multi pierced faces and tattoo's will always assure him as they are his educated friends.

@ Paul P .
There you go again . Great leaps of whatever . We are not in control of our thoughts, just electrical impulses. or maybe divine intevention, thus corpreal. Of the spirit .
Then you argue racism is something endemic in those with paucity ( one word that repeats on your comments ) of education.
Well I'm confused. Its either out of our control, or divine. Not education after all. But then education is all you got. Intelligence is something entirely different.
Like your assertion that altruism came sometime after man . Until then he was beset with survival, a savage indeed. Another case of assuming without a shred of evidence. What man was. Had the case been on your side then, a savage planet it would have remained.
Perhaps because he was altruistic from day one his success was assured. Gaining friends along the way.
But we will never know . At least us no marks you so detest.
Still I've always thought education and intelligence were never mutually exclusive . Had they been, and you the beneficary. It would make you very dangerous indeed .
Luckily, in your case the saying was proven intact.

"I must say sweeping statements like that tend to show a lack of education and are appaulingly distasteful as well"

Opinions derived from "my experience" which "tend" to indicate certain conclusions are not sweeping statements. Please learn the English language and perhaps sign up for a course in English comprehension before making such comments again. It's hard not to be rude, but I'm wearying of constantly having to respond to either willful misunderstanding or simple non-comprehension.

This is a sweeping statement, actually a syllogism. As follows...

Racism is an irrationality. Irrationality is evidence of a paucity of education. Racism is evidence of a paucity of education.

"Do you know lots of racists and anti racists, perhaps you could furnish me with your evidence for this assertion..........that apparently isn't always the case!"

Again you are not comprehending what I say. I said that "in my experience" racists "tend to be"....etc etc". I did not say "all" or "every single one" or that this observation applied to everyone else's experience. In my "own experience" in conversation with very few of either caste and in observing performances in the media, my opinion is that.........what I said in my post.

To suggest that a movement from one position to another necessarily correlates with either a gain or loss of education is ridiculous. You are just being contrarian for its own sake. As I have now remarked umpteen times, if I say during a period of prolonged rain that "it's always raining", I don't mean literally every single day for all time. I don't need to be reminded that sometimes it doesn't rain, and in fact oftentimes it's quite sunny.

Paul P.
I must say sweeping statements like that tend to show a lack of education and are appaulingly distasteful as well. For even if you are correct in part . The reason the semi literate and the dim are usually the first to suffer, from the incoming hoards. In jobs and housing. As their council estate slowly becomes an alien ghetto.
But even then you statement becomes a failed logic . As most of the dead end kids I see, integrate, seemlessly with, Afro Carribeans blacks at least . Not so much the Islamic and eastern Europeans.
Racist s,( in your terms ) those that complain the loudest are not semi literate at all ,but mostly hard working folk that live on the edge of these conurbations. From Blue collar through to blue blooded .
As a recently retired BNP activist .I met many from all social strata. Yes a few were of low intelligence .But jewels just the same.
The real racists are those that find it troubling, that anyone should have that view. Plus your assertion that those that oppose the loudest are far better educated , Well it seems those best educated tweet a lot. I couldn't tell you what they write, as I do not twitter, A ludite of sorts free from the lavatorial filth these so well educated vermin use .

Paul P
I used to be an activist against racism, now I am not as anti racism means not what it used to. I don't feel any less educated, in fact I feel more educated, how does that fit with your theory?
I still think your comment doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Do you know lots of racists and anti racists, perhaps you could furnish me with your evidence for this assertion..........that apparently isn't always the case!

You may not say so. Your comment does not address what I said. I said that in my experience banner-waving racists tended to be semi-literate and ill-educated, while anti-racists (activists against racism) tended to be literate and educated. I said "tended to" in "my experience". I didn't say "every" or "all" in a census of society.

If I say it tends to rain during the winter I don't mean it rains every single day.

Obviously our host's racist bicycling falls within the milieu of advanced education, but he doesn't wear a funny hat. This level of eco-illiteracy has to be taken into account. It doesn't look good.

I think Mr Hitchens has previously described himself as a "culture-ist" and used the example of Japanese people returning to Japan from South America to back up this idea. The returnees were of the same race as their Japan born-and-bred fellows but had a totally different 'take' on life.

Paul P
Is a believer in homosexual and womens rights, eco friendly ( in the correct meaning) , anti drugs, pro freedom of speech, patriotic, honest and hardworking but racist person a less literate and educated a person than an anti homosexual sexist, resource wastefull, anti patriotic, welfare scrounging dishonest anti racist person?
What a patronising and bizarre statement....if I may say so.
May I remind you that our host often rides his bike in a racist way! and I don't declare him illiterate or ill educated.

Because Twitter is the new addiction from which there is apparently no turning back. I can't go to the cinema these days without suffering the twinkling of little screens all over the auditorium. Everyone is fretting every waking moment that someone might not have communicated with them within the last 20 seconds. It really is pathetic.

@The Contributor Formerly Known As Mighty King Bamboowae | 29 November 2012 at 10:52 AM

Would it be fair to summarise your position thus...

While not accusing Peter Hitchens of closet racism yourself, you are saying that others less insightful might construe what you have noticed is a 'softness' on overt racist contributors (i.e. ignoring them) as evidence of closet racism - perhaps in the manner of David Irving's perceived 'softness' on the Nazis in his war books? At the same time you have noticed Hitchens' robust challenges of anti-racists. Is this a fair precis of your position? The racists are not challenged while the anti-racists have a hard time of it.

Could it be that the racists on here are semi-literate, ill-educated and not worthy of challenge on those terms? Could it be that the anti-racists are the opposite and yet have points of order which do merit challenge?

My experience of the wider world is that the overt, banner-waving racists do tend to be semi-literate and ill-educated while the anti-racists tend to be the opposite and yet have in many instances wandered into a form of racial totalitarianism every bit as bad as it's apartheid counterpart. This is a sinister trend to my mind which does merit challenge, and I believe it is this trend that Hitchens' opposes in this blog. It is also my own position.

It is unfortunate that multiracialism is closely associated with multiculturalism. That is just the way it is. Certain races do correlate overwhelmingly with particular cultures. In opposing particular cultures, or at least the worst aspects of particular cultures, a perceived opposition to the overwhelmingly particular racial complement is inevitably dragged into the public debate. I don't think the literate and well-educated have a difficulty with discriminating between the issues here. What the illiterate and ill-educated make of it is a matter of complete indifference to me, as you have noticed it appears also to be to Mr. Hitchens.

PH,I wouldn't worry about Twitter etc. as you seem to do,shortly you will find all these aliases
will be stopped and ,even if the thoughts remain the same,writers will be made to use their own names so most of the comments will be dumbed down.Whether this will be a good thing or not is a matter of speculation as regards free speech etc.but Google will kick anonymity
off the internet for ever,at least in the public area.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.